What do you think?
Rate this book
The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia
The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia provides the most thorough overview of the ethical and legal issues raised by assisted suicide and euthanasia--as well as the most comprehensive argument against their legalization--ever published.
In clear terms accessible to the general reader, Neil Gorsuch thoroughly assesses the strengths and weaknesses of leading contemporary ethical arguments for assisted suicide and euthanasia. He explores evidence and case histories from the Netherlands and Oregon, where the practices have been legalized. He analyzes libertarian and autonomy-based arguments for legalization as well as the impact of key U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the debate. And he examines the history and evolution of laws and attitudes regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia in American society.
After assessing the strengths and weaknesses of arguments for assisted suicide and euthanasia, Gorsuch builds a nuanced, novel, and powerful moral and legal argument against legalization, one based on a principle that, surprisingly, has largely been overlooked in the debate--the idea that human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong. At the same time, the argument Gorsuch develops leaves wide latitude for individual patient autonomy and the refusal of unwanted medical treatment and life-sustaining care, permitting intervention only in cases where an intention to kill is present.
Those on both sides of the assisted suicide question will find Gorsuch's analysis to be a thoughtful and stimulating contribution to the debate about one of the most controversial public policy issues of our day.
In clear terms accessible to the general reader, Neil Gorsuch thoroughly assesses the strengths and weaknesses of leading contemporary ethical arguments for assisted suicide and euthanasia. He explores evidence and case histories from the Netherlands and Oregon, where the practices have been legalized. He analyzes libertarian and autonomy-based arguments for legalization as well as the impact of key U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the debate. And he examines the history and evolution of laws and attitudes regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia in American society.
After assessing the strengths and weaknesses of arguments for assisted suicide and euthanasia, Gorsuch builds a nuanced, novel, and powerful moral and legal argument against legalization, one based on a principle that, surprisingly, has largely been overlooked in the debate--the idea that human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong. At the same time, the argument Gorsuch develops leaves wide latitude for individual patient autonomy and the refusal of unwanted medical treatment and life-sustaining care, permitting intervention only in cases where an intention to kill is present.
Those on both sides of the assisted suicide question will find Gorsuch's analysis to be a thoughtful and stimulating contribution to the debate about one of the most controversial public policy issues of our day.
320 pages, Paperback
First published August 21, 2006
22 people are currently reading
285 people want to read
About the author
Neil Gorsuch
10 books68 followersNeil McGill Gorsuch, D.Phil. (University of Oxford, 2004; J.D., Harvard University, 1991; B.A., Columbia University, 1988) is the 101st Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President Donald Trump to succeed Antonin Scalia and took the oath of office on April 10, 2017.
From 1995 to 2005, Gorsuch was in private practice with the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel. Gorsuch was Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice from 2005 to his appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, to replace Judge David M. Ebel, who took senior status in 2006.
Gorsuch is a proponent of textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in interpreting the United States Constitution. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, he is an advocate of natural law jurisprudence. Gorsuch clerked for Judge David B. Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1991 to 1992 and U.S. Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy from 1993 to 1994. He is the first Supreme Court Justice to serve alongside another Justice for whom he once had clerked (Kennedy).
From 1995 to 2005, Gorsuch was in private practice with the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel. Gorsuch was Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice from 2005 to his appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, to replace Judge David M. Ebel, who took senior status in 2006.
Gorsuch is a proponent of textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in interpreting the United States Constitution. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, he is an advocate of natural law jurisprudence. Gorsuch clerked for Judge David B. Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1991 to 1992 and U.S. Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy from 1993 to 1994. He is the first Supreme Court Justice to serve alongside another Justice for whom he once had clerked (Kennedy).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 3, 2017
Before he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Trump, I had never heard of Judge Neil Gorsuch. Though there was some reasonable coverage of him post-nomination, most of the media attention has fallen (as expected) along party lines--especially regarding his perceived/probable response to abortion, should the issue reach the Supreme Court again in the near future. However, what you don't get when you boil someone's views down to a one-liner is the thinking behind it.
Knowing that, on the one side, some people voted for President Trump entirely because of the Supreme Court question--and knowing that, on the other side, many people couldn't stomach the idea of a conservative Justice--I thought it best to try to hear from the man himself. Though he has not written on abortion in a narrow sense, Judge Gorsuch did publish a book in 2006 called "The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia," which I finished last night.
I want to encourage you, wherever on the political spectrum you fall, if issues such as assisted suicide, euthanasia, end-of-life care, and abortion concern you, this is a fascinating (and sometimes horrifying, to be honest) read. The book narrowly focuses on assisted suicide and euthanasia, but it is not difficult to see how all of these "life" issues are intertwined philosophically, morally, legally, and medically--all of which are explored and expounded.
Though authored by a legal scholar, the book is written in very clear and accessible prose, and it does not fall into the trap of "legalese," even in the extensive case studies that are referenced. (Note: Several articles I have read about Gorsuch have mentioned his concern that the law be accessible to everyone, and so his decisions are often written in very clear language.) There are, to be sure, copious end notes for those individuals that enjoy following the "rabbit hole" of references back to original sources.
Though not something I would have thought to pick up without the prompting of Judge Gorsuch's nomination, I'm very glad I read this book. I certainly feel much more prepared myself to have reasonably-educated discussions about life issues now, much more so that before. Even just knowing the historic background of eugenics in the United States, or how a Utilitarian might evaluate life issues, or how different people view the responsibility of the State in protecting human life, was enlightening.
Lastly, I know that many people make "pro-life" arguments from a Biblical perspective. But I also understand that there are many for whom an appeal to the Bible holds no weight, especially in a "political" sense of charged topics like assisted suicide, euthanasia, and abortion. Though you well-know via media coverage (spoiler alert!) that Judge Gorsuch will likely fall on the "pro-life" side of things should these issues reach the Court, I want to be very clear to the skeptics that none of his arguments for what he calls the "inviolability of life principle" are based on faith or are an appeal to religion or the Bible.
Knowing that, on the one side, some people voted for President Trump entirely because of the Supreme Court question--and knowing that, on the other side, many people couldn't stomach the idea of a conservative Justice--I thought it best to try to hear from the man himself. Though he has not written on abortion in a narrow sense, Judge Gorsuch did publish a book in 2006 called "The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia," which I finished last night.
I want to encourage you, wherever on the political spectrum you fall, if issues such as assisted suicide, euthanasia, end-of-life care, and abortion concern you, this is a fascinating (and sometimes horrifying, to be honest) read. The book narrowly focuses on assisted suicide and euthanasia, but it is not difficult to see how all of these "life" issues are intertwined philosophically, morally, legally, and medically--all of which are explored and expounded.
Though authored by a legal scholar, the book is written in very clear and accessible prose, and it does not fall into the trap of "legalese," even in the extensive case studies that are referenced. (Note: Several articles I have read about Gorsuch have mentioned his concern that the law be accessible to everyone, and so his decisions are often written in very clear language.) There are, to be sure, copious end notes for those individuals that enjoy following the "rabbit hole" of references back to original sources.
Though not something I would have thought to pick up without the prompting of Judge Gorsuch's nomination, I'm very glad I read this book. I certainly feel much more prepared myself to have reasonably-educated discussions about life issues now, much more so that before. Even just knowing the historic background of eugenics in the United States, or how a Utilitarian might evaluate life issues, or how different people view the responsibility of the State in protecting human life, was enlightening.
Lastly, I know that many people make "pro-life" arguments from a Biblical perspective. But I also understand that there are many for whom an appeal to the Bible holds no weight, especially in a "political" sense of charged topics like assisted suicide, euthanasia, and abortion. Though you well-know via media coverage (spoiler alert!) that Judge Gorsuch will likely fall on the "pro-life" side of things should these issues reach the Court, I want to be very clear to the skeptics that none of his arguments for what he calls the "inviolability of life principle" are based on faith or are an appeal to religion or the Bible.
May 28, 2017
Thought I'd sample the thought of our newest Supreme Court Justice. I was enormously impressed. He writes with crystal clarity and examines the issues thoroughly, with impeccable logic.
Although I disagree with him on the issue of assisted suicide, it's at the most basic level. On secular principles ("that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life . . .") he holds that life is morally inviolable, that no one has the right to intentionally kill someone else. Although I agree that all men are created equal under the law, in my opinion they don't necessarily remain equal, and there are occasions when it is proper and moral to allow and/or help them to take their lives.
Nevertheless, Gorsuch has strong arguments, and gave me pause a few times.
His intended audience here is whom? Mostly lawyers and judges, I think, although it's quite accessible to the layman interested enough to pursue the issue in exhaustive detail. I have to admit I read only 4 of the 9 chapters, the ones that interested me the most.
There are many pages of footnotes and bibliography and it can be considered a scholarly work as well one for a general audience.
In any case, I think President Trump has done exceedingly well with his first Supreme Court appointment.
Although I disagree with him on the issue of assisted suicide, it's at the most basic level. On secular principles ("that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life . . .") he holds that life is morally inviolable, that no one has the right to intentionally kill someone else. Although I agree that all men are created equal under the law, in my opinion they don't necessarily remain equal, and there are occasions when it is proper and moral to allow and/or help them to take their lives.
Nevertheless, Gorsuch has strong arguments, and gave me pause a few times.
His intended audience here is whom? Mostly lawyers and judges, I think, although it's quite accessible to the layman interested enough to pursue the issue in exhaustive detail. I have to admit I read only 4 of the 9 chapters, the ones that interested me the most.
There are many pages of footnotes and bibliography and it can be considered a scholarly work as well one for a general audience.
In any case, I think President Trump has done exceedingly well with his first Supreme Court appointment.
June 9, 2019
This text by (now) Justice Neil Gorsuch reviews the developing philosophical framework guiding judicial decisions regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia. Justice Gorsuch examines various philosophy-of-law positions and how they relate to the question (such as Autonomy, Neutralism, the "Harm Principle", Perfectionism etc.
He places these in their real world contexts, examining decisions and outcomes from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. He finally proposes his own conception that he believes adequately balances the autonomy rights of the individual with the state's right to protect life in general.
Recommended for lawyers, those interested in Philosophy of Law and the euthanasia debate.
He places these in their real world contexts, examining decisions and outcomes from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. He finally proposes his own conception that he believes adequately balances the autonomy rights of the individual with the state's right to protect life in general.
Recommended for lawyers, those interested in Philosophy of Law and the euthanasia debate.
December 18, 2018
Could be titled "The Slippery Slope"
April 19, 2017
I found this to be a very lucid review of assisted suicide from a bioethics perspective with a heavy dose of law (as expected). As a bioethics interested person, I was more than pleased with his knowledge and treatment of the subject matter without drowning in law history.
July 2, 2020
The first time I’ve read a book like this. Very well-balanced, and shows how judges are there to judge according to existing legislation, it is really the politicians who makes laws. However, the book has shown how many things judges consider, especially the repercussions and later wider consequences their actions may pose.
August 17, 2019
As books on the topic go, Gorsuch’s is a little dated, but the logic is incisive and the information on the Dutch regime and historical legal practice is invaluable.
July 14, 2010
Ilmu yang oleh banyak orang dikatakan bebas nilai, seringkali harus berhadapan dengan kenyataan hidup dalam konteks relasi sosial. Karenanya kemudian timbul istilah etika ilmu pengetahuan, walaupun etika itu sendiri tidak termasuk dalam kawasan ilmu. Hal-hal seperti ini akan sangat jelas terasa pada ilmu-ilmu yang secara langsung dan segera berhubungan dengan kebutuhan manusia, seperti ilmu biologi, kedokteran dan lainnya yang dekat dengan kebutuhan “primer” manusia.
Menghadapi realita semacam itu maka sangat terasa untuk memasukkan dimensi etis dalam pengembangan ilmu maupun penerapan ilmu dalam kehidupan keseharian. Sebagai contoh teknologi transgenik, cloning merupakan isu yang banyak menyita perhatian umat manusia karena menyangkut secara langsung kehidupannya. Ketika ditemukan teknologi operasi plastik untuk merubah bentuk bagian-bagian tubuh serta teknologi sejenisnya, perdebatan diantara pihak yang pro maupun kontra nampak nyata terletak pada perdebatan dimensi etika dan bukan pada ilmu/teknologinya itu sendiri. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa dimensi etika tidak dapat dipisahkan dengan ilmu itu sendiri. Walaupun dilain pihak ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi tidak dapat dan tidak perlu dicegah perkembangannya. Apalagi ilmu yang menyangkut langsung kepada keputusan tentang hidup matinya manusia yaitu Euthanasia dapat dipastikan menjadi bahan perdebatan yang tidak saja menyangkut dimensi etis, tetapi telah melibatkan dimensi-dimensi lain yang masing-masing memiliki standar/ukuran kebenaran.
Bila kembali pada kebenaran yang menjadi pijakan dalam pengembangan ilmu, serta realitas adanya berbagai macam ilmu, maka setiap ilmu harus dinilai dengan standarnya sendiri. Selanjutnya dalam rangka situasi sosial yang ada maka penilaian tersebut akan dengan sendirinya bersifat relatif.
Dalam euthanasia, setidaknya terdapat empat macam ilmu yang terlibat didalamnya yaitu hukum, hak asasi, biologi/kedokteran dan agama, yang pasti masing-masing memiliki standar kebenaran yang berbeda. Pertanyaannya tentu bagaimana proses keputusan euthanasia harus diambil untuk dapat dilaksanakan tanpa melanggar kebenaran masing-masing, untuk itu tidak ada jalan lain, selain mengikuti kebenaran relatif.
Etika, sering lebih terasa digunakan sebagai pijakan oleh praktisi ilmu, dibanding pihak yang mengembangkan ilmu itu sendiri. Profesi-profesi seperti ahli hukum, dokter dan sebagainya merupakan praktisi ilmu yang sering dituntut secara kuat etikanya dalam menerapkan ilmunya. Pertanyaannya adalah etika yang mana yang harus digunakan oleh seorang praktisi ilmu. Lebih lanjut apabila beberapa ilmu harus berperan secara bersama-sama, maka etika yang harus digunakan tentu diutamakan etika yang berlaku bagi masyarakat pengguna ilmu tersebut.
Ilmu yang seharusnya menjadikan hidup lebih mudah, lebih nikmat, lebih efisien dan sebagainya, seringkali justru membelenggu hakekat sebagai manusia, bahkan dapat secara nyata menghancurkan kehidupan. Kekecewaan Einstein terhadap penggunaan hukum fisika modern dalam kasus Hiroshima ; kemajuan teknologi industri di satu pihak dan polusi yang ditimbulkannya merupakan contoh bahwa kemajuan ilmu memiliki dua sisi yang saling kontradiktif. Demikian pula penemuan-penemuan dibidang kedokteran seringkali sangat mudah dilihat sisi positif dan negatifnya, seperti penggunaan bahan dalam anestesi, teknik-teknik pembedahan, fertilitas, euthanasia dan sebagainya. Kenyataan tersebut menunjukkan semakin jelas bahwa ilmu bersifat bebas nilai. Disinilah pentingnya norma dan etika dalam penggunaan ilmu, yang hendaknya menjadi konsensus bagi umat manusia. Klaim-klaim hukum terhadap tindakan dokter dalam euthanasia merupakan bentuk lain dari sisi negatif dalam penerapan ilmu, yang terkadang sama sekali tidak terbayangkan oleh dokter yang bersangkutan.
Jadi perkembangan ilmu yang kemudian diujudkan dalam tindakan berkembang dalam kebudayaan manusia serta sekaligus mempengaruhi kebudayaan manusia melalui dua sisi tersebut, pada gilirannya tentu dapat berupa manfaat dan atau bencana. Demikian pula euthanasia dapat hadir diantara manfaat dan bencana
Menghadapi realita semacam itu maka sangat terasa untuk memasukkan dimensi etis dalam pengembangan ilmu maupun penerapan ilmu dalam kehidupan keseharian. Sebagai contoh teknologi transgenik, cloning merupakan isu yang banyak menyita perhatian umat manusia karena menyangkut secara langsung kehidupannya. Ketika ditemukan teknologi operasi plastik untuk merubah bentuk bagian-bagian tubuh serta teknologi sejenisnya, perdebatan diantara pihak yang pro maupun kontra nampak nyata terletak pada perdebatan dimensi etika dan bukan pada ilmu/teknologinya itu sendiri. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa dimensi etika tidak dapat dipisahkan dengan ilmu itu sendiri. Walaupun dilain pihak ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi tidak dapat dan tidak perlu dicegah perkembangannya. Apalagi ilmu yang menyangkut langsung kepada keputusan tentang hidup matinya manusia yaitu Euthanasia dapat dipastikan menjadi bahan perdebatan yang tidak saja menyangkut dimensi etis, tetapi telah melibatkan dimensi-dimensi lain yang masing-masing memiliki standar/ukuran kebenaran.
Bila kembali pada kebenaran yang menjadi pijakan dalam pengembangan ilmu, serta realitas adanya berbagai macam ilmu, maka setiap ilmu harus dinilai dengan standarnya sendiri. Selanjutnya dalam rangka situasi sosial yang ada maka penilaian tersebut akan dengan sendirinya bersifat relatif.
Dalam euthanasia, setidaknya terdapat empat macam ilmu yang terlibat didalamnya yaitu hukum, hak asasi, biologi/kedokteran dan agama, yang pasti masing-masing memiliki standar kebenaran yang berbeda. Pertanyaannya tentu bagaimana proses keputusan euthanasia harus diambil untuk dapat dilaksanakan tanpa melanggar kebenaran masing-masing, untuk itu tidak ada jalan lain, selain mengikuti kebenaran relatif.
Etika, sering lebih terasa digunakan sebagai pijakan oleh praktisi ilmu, dibanding pihak yang mengembangkan ilmu itu sendiri. Profesi-profesi seperti ahli hukum, dokter dan sebagainya merupakan praktisi ilmu yang sering dituntut secara kuat etikanya dalam menerapkan ilmunya. Pertanyaannya adalah etika yang mana yang harus digunakan oleh seorang praktisi ilmu. Lebih lanjut apabila beberapa ilmu harus berperan secara bersama-sama, maka etika yang harus digunakan tentu diutamakan etika yang berlaku bagi masyarakat pengguna ilmu tersebut.
Ilmu yang seharusnya menjadikan hidup lebih mudah, lebih nikmat, lebih efisien dan sebagainya, seringkali justru membelenggu hakekat sebagai manusia, bahkan dapat secara nyata menghancurkan kehidupan. Kekecewaan Einstein terhadap penggunaan hukum fisika modern dalam kasus Hiroshima ; kemajuan teknologi industri di satu pihak dan polusi yang ditimbulkannya merupakan contoh bahwa kemajuan ilmu memiliki dua sisi yang saling kontradiktif. Demikian pula penemuan-penemuan dibidang kedokteran seringkali sangat mudah dilihat sisi positif dan negatifnya, seperti penggunaan bahan dalam anestesi, teknik-teknik pembedahan, fertilitas, euthanasia dan sebagainya. Kenyataan tersebut menunjukkan semakin jelas bahwa ilmu bersifat bebas nilai. Disinilah pentingnya norma dan etika dalam penggunaan ilmu, yang hendaknya menjadi konsensus bagi umat manusia. Klaim-klaim hukum terhadap tindakan dokter dalam euthanasia merupakan bentuk lain dari sisi negatif dalam penerapan ilmu, yang terkadang sama sekali tidak terbayangkan oleh dokter yang bersangkutan.
Jadi perkembangan ilmu yang kemudian diujudkan dalam tindakan berkembang dalam kebudayaan manusia serta sekaligus mempengaruhi kebudayaan manusia melalui dua sisi tersebut, pada gilirannya tentu dapat berupa manfaat dan atau bencana. Demikian pula euthanasia dapat hadir diantara manfaat dan bencana
February 24, 2017
I must admit that the main effect of reading this book by Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch was to get some understanding of where he might stand in the abortion debate. Since he takes the position on the euthanasia and assisted living debate that human life is a basic good and should be preserved I'm guessing Roe v. Wade may be in trouble (though he had never ruled on abortion). What is clear, though, is that he is a brilliant legal scholar who carefully looks at all sides of a debate and has a vast knowledge of the legal background of an issue. Overall, that may make him a good candidate; time will tell. What was beyond questioning for me was the reaffirmation of why I am glad I am not a lawyer; my mind simply doesn't work like this.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews